Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Alice Usha Rani Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S). No. 5801 of 2014
Decided On : 16-05-2024
[PENSION] - [WITHHOLDING OF PENSION] - [Jharkhand Pension Rules, Rule 43(b), Rule 139(a), (b), (c)] - [The court examined the provisions of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, particularly Rule 43(b) and Rule 139, which govern the withholding of pension. It emphasized that pension can only be withheld if there is a finding of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings. The court found that no such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner prior to retirement, and thus the withholding of pension was unjustified. The court highlighted the importance of natural justice and the need for a proper inquiry before any deduction of pension can occur, ultimately leading to the decision to quash the orders withholding the pension.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Director from the Government of Jharkhand, sought to challenge the withholding of 15% of her pension for five years based on allegations of misconduct related to her role in the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The petitioner argued that no departmental proceedings were initiated against her prior to her retirement, and the orders for withholding her pension were based solely on a pending criminal case and a vigilance report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders to withhold the pension were not justified as no departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner before her retirement. The court emphasized that pension is a right and cannot be withheld without proper inquiry and findings of misconduct. It ruled that the mere existence of a criminal case does not suffice to justify the withholding of pension benefits.
Issues: Whether the withholding of 15% of the petitioner's pension was justified under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, given that no departmental proceedings were initiated against her prior to retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, pension can only be withheld if there is a finding of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings. Since no such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the withholding of her pension was unlawful.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders withholding the pension and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner her full pension benefits within 12 weeks.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Heard the parties.
Prayers made
2. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay her 15% pension which has been withheld for five years after quashing and setting aside the orders contained in memo No. 9290 dated 20.09.2013 and 10003 dated 15.10.2013, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also the memo No. 1363 dated 15.11.2013 issued by the Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Factual Matrix
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner on attaining the age of retirement, superannuated on 30.04.2010 from the post of Director, Department of Land Records, Measurement, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is the case of petitioner that she joined the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 13.08.2004 as Secretary and thereafter, she was made Controller of Examination to which she assumed the charges on 05.03.2005. It is the further case of petitioner that on the basis of investigation report of the Vigilance Department to the State Government dated 13.12.2010, an FIR being R.C. Case No. 06(A)/12 (AHD) was registered against the petitioner and others for committing administrative irregularities and mismanagement in the 1st Civil Service Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. However, the said R.C. Case is still pending before the learned Trial Court and petitioner is on bail and the respondents have not initiated any departmental proceeding against the petitioner for the aforesaid charges.
4. It is the further case of petitioner that vide letter No. 6875 dated 01.06.2012, the petitioner was issued show-cause in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, seeking her reply to which the petitioner replied requesting the concerned authorities to provide her certain documents. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations requesting therein to provide the documents as demanded by her earlier but the same has not yet been provided to the petitioner for the reasons best known to the respondent-authorities. It is the further case of petitioner that though the respondents provided certain documents to the petitioner but the same are not connected in any manner with the allegation/s charges levelled against the petitioner.
5. Ultimately, vide orders contained in memo No. 9290 dated 20.09.2013 and 10003 dated 15.10.2013, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi has passed order for deduction of 15% pension of petitioner for a period of 5 years from 30.04.2010 to 30.04.2015 and consequently, vide order contained in memo No. 1363 dated 15.11.2013, the Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi issued an authority slip to the Treasury Officer, Hazaribagh for deduction of 15% pension of petitioner with complying with the provisions under Rule 139(c) of Jharkhand Pension Rules as well as the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chief Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority against the order of deduction but till date no order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on her Appeal.
Throwing challenge to the order of deduction, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the final order regarding reduction of pension by 15%. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of impugned order it is apparent that the very basis of passing of the said order is report of the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid R.C. Case which is still pending for adjudication and neither any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner nor was any memorandum of c
Pension is a right of an employee and cannot be withheld without a proper inquiry and findings of misconduct; mere allegations or pending criminal cases are insufficient grounds for such action.
A government employee's pension can only be reduced for proven grave misconduct, not based solely on isolated allegations, following proper procedural safeguards.
The decision to withhold a pension under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule should be based on future conduct, and if based on past conduct, Rule 43(b) should be invoked instead.
Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules is not applicable to cases where the misconduct in question occurred while the petitioner was in service and departmental proceedings had already been initiated agains....
Authority cannot invoke pension reduction after full pension has been sanctioned; revisional powers are reserved for the State Government under Rule 139(c) of Jharkhand Pension Rules.
The court established that under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, any disciplinary action or show-cause notice related to alleged misconduct must be initiated within four years of the event, failing whic....
A retired government servant's pension cannot be deducted without initiating proper departmental proceedings within the stipulated time frame as per the Pension Rules, specifically Rule 43(b).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
